|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 10, 2009 5:20:14 GMT
Seriously if water vapour is the missing ingredient to the martian atmosphere stopping it from getting any warmer then maybe someone can explain why Venus has about 97% C02 and no water and yet is very very hot, and yes i know it is closer to the sun but hey whats the sun got to do with AGW. I think the part of this you're missing is that due to incredibly high pressures of that atmosphere CO2...Venus has a concentration 500000 times higher than Earth.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 10, 2009 5:33:31 GMT
I think the part of this you're missing is that due to incredibly high pressures of that atmosphere CO2...Venus has a concentration 500000 times higher than Earth.[/quote]
Well that would make a difference i suppose. Thanks for that poitsplace.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 10, 2009 6:33:43 GMT
Well, well, well a couple of days ago i was lambasted by someone for asking about the historical high levels of C02 on Earth and thier effects on the climate and was told we might as well be talking about a different planet and here we are now doing just that, where is that pesky poster when you need him? Seriously if water vapour is the missing ingredient to the martian atmosphere stopping it from getting any warmer then maybe someone can explain why Venus has about 97% C02 and no water and yet is very very hot, and yes i know it is closer to the sun but hey whats the sun got to do with AGW. I suspect C02 behaves much the same way on Mars as it does here, therefore there will be only the 3 very small absorbtion bands across the IR frequency spectrum. With no water vapour to mop up the rest, it is obvious that C02 plays a very minor role on Mars, ergo the same goes on Earth. LOL, crakar-san! Here are some reasons that Venus is very hot, other than being closer to the sun than Earth: mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Venus.htmlThe fact that Venus has a 117 day rotation period is also probably a factor, as is its lack of an ocean.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 10, 2009 12:15:19 GMT
Because Venus reflects more sunlight away than the earth, it absorbs about the same amount of energy as the Earth.
The Sun emits little IR as compared to shortwave radiation, which this "expert" doesn't seem to know.
He's got some funny ideas that because the crust is new "it is safe to assume that the crust is much thinner than on Earth". Forget the evidence from the orbiters then!
Why would the rotation period be *so* important? Or lack of ocean? Are you just picking at differences and saying "therefore" they must be important. Venus has no moon. Does that make a difference too (or am I being silly now?).
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 10, 2009 14:12:04 GMT
I guess I just don't see it as "either it is AGW or solar." IF the Solar theory is as hard to prove/disprove as AGW, then nobody will ever win. If we find out that it isn't just the sun then all arguments against a fallacious (if it is) AGW argument are lost. But if the public can be made to understand that the science is NOT settled on the vast majority of the earth's climate issues, if that's true, which I believe it to be, that's a huge step in the right direction. If the public can be made to understand that the planet is warming anyway, and all of the ills predicted are going to happen anyway it's just a matter of a difference in time, perhaps the panic will go away. Or perhaps we can get people to stop building on seashores and expecting help when the waters come. Besides, if we really want or need to cool the earth, it is a really REALLY easy thing to do, compared with reducing CO2 output. We'd need to shield somewhere between 2/10ths of 1% and 1% of the sun's enery from hitting the earth. I'm sure we could come up with a relatively easy and cost effective way of doing that. It's a lot harder to warm a cooling planet than it is to cool an overheated planet. I don't believe that it is possible now to have a scientific approach to the climate - that was lost when the discussion moved into the political domain and it was stated that the 'science is settled'. The reason for this is that AGW gives people money and control and these are, and have been, the driving force behind politics and war since time immemorial. The AGW proponent politicians and their research grant funded hangers on, will never let go of their positions now regardless of scientific argument.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 10, 2009 14:39:04 GMT
Don't despair Naut. Nature will be along to give them an almighty kick up the a*se pretty soon.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 10, 2009 15:08:10 GMT
I don't believe that it is possible now to have a scientific approach to the climate - that was lost when the discussion moved into the political domain and it was stated that the 'science is settled'. The reason for this is that AGW gives people money and control and these are, and have been, the driving force behind politics and war since time immemorial. The AGW proponent politicians and their research grant funded hangers on, will never let go of their positions now regardless of scientific argument. Uh, but the science IS settled. The only thing that isn't settled is the outcome long term, and that's why there are various charts / models / forecasts out there, instead of just one. Where "politics" versus "science" comes in is with things like the BAU forecast. There is absolute no way we can "BAU" ourselves into global warming, and the science is reasonably solid on that as well. But the warmies like to include BAU because it's really scarey.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 11, 2009 1:52:39 GMT
LOL, crakar-san! Here are some reasons that Venus is very hot, other than being closer to the sun than Earth: mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Venus.htmlThe fact that Venus has a 117 day rotation period is also probably a factor, as is its lack of an ocean. [/quote] Its not my fault, i have a cage full of monkeys out the back with type writers, every now and then they type something plausible, this one slipped through the net. However: If you think that was funny how about this: According to the IPCC, in simple terms, if the C02 levels increase trapping more IR this will be seen as increased heat in the Atmosphere. This increased heat could be measured and is commonly known as the "hot spot". This "hot spot" should occur about 10K's up over the tropics, alas after years of looking using radiosonde equipment the "hot spot" could not be found, therefore if there is no "hot spot" then an increase in C02 is not the cause of GW. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, cried the financially dependant sientists, they objected and said "maybe" the readings of radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and "maybe" the hot spot had gone undetected. Even though hundreds of radiosondes have all said the same thing. Therefore the chances that they all missed the "hot spot" is about as remote as me winning lotto. The financially dependant scientists suggest we ignore the thermometer readings and use the radiosonde wind measurements, chuck in a bit of data manipulation and hey presto we have a "hot spot". This is all the evidence you need to halt global warming in its tracks as long as you apply COMMON SENSE. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 11, 2009 23:46:57 GMT
According to the IPCC, in simple terms, if the C02 levels increase trapping more IR this will be seen as increased heat in the Atmosphere. This increased heat could be measured and is commonly known as the "hot spot". This "hot spot" should occur about 10K's up over the tropics, alas after years of looking using radiosonde equipment the "hot spot" could not be found, therefore if there is no "hot spot" then an increase in C02 is not the cause of GW. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, cried the financially dependant sientists, they objected and said "maybe" the readings of radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and "maybe" the hot spot had gone undetected. Even though hundreds of radiosondes have all said the same thing. Therefore the chances that they all missed the "hot spot" is about as remote as me winning lotto. The financially dependant scientists suggest we ignore the thermometer readings and use the radiosonde wind measurements, chuck in a bit of data manipulation and hey presto we have a "hot spot". This is all the evidence you need to halt global warming in its tracks as long as you apply COMMON SENSE. Good luck with that. [/quote] Whats going on, where are the witty comebacks from the preachers of armageddon trying to justify why the thermometers are not any good. I suppose it is pretty hard to defend the indefensible. Edit: here is a link on the subject www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html Cheers
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2009 2:15:19 GMT
I don't believe that it is possible now to have a scientific approach to the climate - that was lost when the discussion moved into the political domain and it was stated that the 'science is settled'. The reason for this is that AGW gives people money and control and these are, and have been, the driving force behind politics and war since time immemorial. The AGW proponent politicians and their research grant funded hangers on, will never let go of their positions now regardless of scientific argument. Uh, but the science IS settled. The only thing that isn't settled is the outcome long term, and that's why there are various charts / models / forecasts out there, instead of just one. Where "politics" versus "science" comes in is with things like the BAU forecast. There is absolute no way we can "BAU" ourselves into global warming, and the science is reasonably solid on that as well. But the warmies like to include BAU because it's really scarey. You sound like the Vatican talking to Galileo - people thought the science was 'settled' then. "Science is settled" is an oxymoron - it only makes sense to those who believe they have reached omniscience and infallibility.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 12, 2009 19:03:31 GMT
LOL, crakar-san! Here are some reasons that Venus is very hot, other than being closer to the sun than Earth: mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Venus.htmlThe fact that Venus has a 117 day rotation period is also probably a factor, as is its lack of an ocean. Neither of those can make Venus warmer. The suggestion that Venus is closer to the sun is also a bad explaination. Mercury is even closer to the sun yet it is cooler than Venus.
|
|
|
Post by tilmari on Feb 12, 2009 23:21:58 GMT
Venus is so hot because of three reasons. 1. It has no oceans, which has made possible a runaway greenhouse. 2. It has nearly 200 active volcanoes over 100 km in diameter that promote its heat. 3. It has an atmosphere in mass nearly 100 times that of the Earth to keep it warm.
The temperature of Venus is about 450 Celsius, Mercury night goes to -200 C and daytime +400 C.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 13, 2009 0:12:47 GMT
Still, if the IPCC models are correct, shouldn't Mars be much warmer than it apparently is given its relatively high atmospheric carbon dioxide content?
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 13, 2009 2:22:39 GMT
Still, if the IPCC models are correct, shouldn't Mars be much warmer than it apparently is given its relatively high atmospheric carbon dioxide content? Hold that thought, according to the latest booga booga C02 has nothing to do with it. Apparently sulphur dioxide not carbon dioxide is the real culprit. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29086842/
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Feb 13, 2009 7:07:38 GMT
Interesting and worth looking into, but the mid-point of the Holocene was, say, 10,000 years ago. Thirty-six thousand years prior to that, in fact, ten thousand years prior to that, the mid North American ice sheets were greater than two miles in thickness. So it probably is incorrect to refer to "warming periods" caused by volcanic action 'over the last 46,000 years'.
|
|